ArticleEuropean radiology2024
Optimisation of protection in the medical exposure of recurrent adult patients due to computed tomography procedures: development of recurrent exposures reference levels.
Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- European multicenter study on recurrent imaging practice in computed tomography.The British journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Translational approaches for radiation protection: treating patients, not their images.European radiology · 2025Article
- Relationship Between Effective Dose, Alternative Metrics, and SSDE: Experiences with Two CT Dose-Monitoring Systems.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the incidence (1 year) and the cumulative incidence (3 years) of the condition of patients accruing cumulative effective doses (CED) of ≥ 100 mSv and their variability among different hospitals. To establish and validate a reference level for the CED in patients with recurrent exposures (RERL) and provide a RERL value.
methodsData of CT exposure was collected in 9 similar hospitals. The database included 294,222 patient*years who underwent 442,278 CT exams in 3 years. The incidence proportion of patients with CED ≥ 100 mSv in a given year (I
resultsI
conclusionThe management of patients with recurrent exposures is highly variable among hospitals leading to a 50-fold variation in I CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This is the first ever multicentre study that quantifies recurrent exposures in terms of incidence and cumulative incidence of patients with CED ≥ 100 mSv. RERL establishment and use could benefit the optimisation of radioprotection of patients with recurrent exposures. KEY POINTS: This is the first multicentre study estimating yearly incidence and 3-year cumulative incidence of patients with cumulative effective doses ≥ 100 mSv. In this study, a 50-fold inter centre variation between the maximum (5.1%) and the minimum value (0.1%) of yearly incidence of patients with cumulative effective doses ≥ 100 mSv was reported. The range of the 3-year cumulative incidence extended from 1.1 to 11.4% (a tenfold variation) The third quartile of the yearly cumulative effective doses in a centre showed a strong positive correlation with the yearly incidence of patients with cumulative effective doses ≥ 100 mSv, with a potential of being used to set reference levels for recurrent exposures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38127075What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.